You don't deny that strong families are essential to society.You don't think theres anything wrong with a woman staying home if it's her choice

So do you think a family is stronger if a woman stays home? Or do you think that has nothing to do with it?

I think each situation is different, and each decision should be made based on the best benefit to the children. I'm not going to short-sell a man for potentially being a stronger parent than his wife who could be more successful as a breadwinner, and I'm not going to discount a more "traditional" family if the roles were to fit that way. But each person should have a choice, and not a predetermined role they are to play based on gender and not necessarily on ability.

Maybe some situations are different, but women are better caregivers and they will always be better caregivers. I don't know if it's the estrogen, or the whole breast-feeding issue.I don't know why men are genetically designed to be better hunters.

Wow. That's just screwed up beyond words.

You're saying that it's actually impossible for me to be a better parent, based totally on genetics, even though I've seen evidence to the contrary?

Yeah, I want to be the better parent. I hate losing to my wife at anything.

I wasn't trying to argue that the way to strengthen the family is by continuing the husband name tradition.I was trying to make a more relevant point about how important strong families are.

It seems like a lot of smart women are losing the desire to raise good children.

Educated women, on average have less children than uneducated women. Why is that?

Hmm... 1BA + 2MAs +1ABD + (hopefully) 1JD --> 5 kids.

How does having less children equal losing the desire to raise good children?

It doesn't.But work does often get in the way of raising children.Women should get an education, and they should work if they want to.

Daycare is a sucky substitute for a mother.

Agree with both points butI would say that daycare is a sucky substitute for parents. There are things that women can biologically provide for children that men can't (breastfeeding etc.) but I do not think that women are inherently better caregivers than men are. Having fathers more involved in being physically present for their children would ease the burden on the a family where the woman (and man) are working parents.

1. You won't be able to afford nice things, because you'll be sucky at everything you do.

2. The everything you do that you'll be sucky at will include being a father, unless you're too sucky at life to conceive a child but not sucky enough at life that your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant by another man.

You're saying that it's actually impossible for me to be a better parent, based totally on genetics, even though I've seen evidence to the contrary?

Come on. I said that there were some exceptions. But generally, I don't care if it's genetics, or experience or tradition. If men and women suddenly switched roles you'd have a huge increase of crap-filled diapers, and toddler concussions.

A jackass who doesn't think that he plays a role in shaping his children and who reifies traditional gender roles.

My hell, this is impossible.

Stressing the importance of motherhood does not demean the importance of a father.I'm sorry if you think I'm saying fathers aren't important. I didn't mean to imply that.

You demean the importance of fathers when you suggest that it's the woman's job to shape the children and the man's job to protect and provide, or whatever the @#!* gibberish came out of your fingers

I said fathers protect children and encourage development. So does that mean I meant women can't protect and encourage development? Of course not. And other the other side Fathers will still shape children, but mothers still have the primary role when they are home with them all day.

There's a difference between wanting it, expecting it, and demanding it. In the case of wanting it, no it doesn't make him sexist if he's willing to compromise. The latter two, however, I would consider sexist because they demand a more firm mindset.

I guess it is important to highlight the importance on love in this equation. I do not believe that someone can choose who they will love and if the hypothetical man does fall in love with a woman who does not fit his predetermined bill then he would be stupid to employ a litmus test in choosing who to marry. I don't know if he is necessarily sexist but likely stupid and cold hearted .

A jackass who doesn't think that he plays a role in shaping his children and who reifies traditional gender roles.

My hell, this is impossible.

Stressing the importance of motherhood does not demean the importance of a father.I'm sorry if you think I'm saying fathers aren't important. I didn't mean to imply that.

You demean the importance of fathers when you suggest that it's the woman's job to shape the children and the man's job to protect and provide, or whatever the @#!* gibberish came out of your fingers

I said fathers protect children and encourage development. So does that mean I meant women can't protect and encourage development? Of course not. And other the other side Fathers will still shape children, but mothers still have the primary role when they are home with them all day.